Numbering Resource Utilization in the United States as of June 30, 2001

Craig Stroup

Industry Analysis Division Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission

November 2001

This report is available for reference in the FCC's Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20554. Several private firms specialize in locating, duplicating, and distributing FCC documents. Documents may be purchased by calling Qualex International at (202) 863-2893, or (202) 863- 2898 (fax) or via e-mail at [email protected]. Also, this and many other useful reports can be downloaded from the FCC-State Link Internet site at www.fcc.gov/ccb/stats. Numbering Resource Utilization in the United States as of June 30, 2001

Introduction

In recent years, a rapidly increasing demand for telephone numbers in a competitive environment has required numerous area code splits, overlays, and number optimization measures. In this report, we summarize the third systematic collection of comprehensive data on the utilization of telephone numbers within the United States. The underlying information was acquired from carriers holding numbering resources and was analyzed as part of our ongoing assessment of the numbering resource optimization measures prescribed by the Commission’s recent Numbering Resource Optimization (NRO) Orders.1 The reported data show that of the roughly 1.2 billion numbers held by reporting U.S. carriers, about 40% are assigned to subscribers and are in active use, about 50% are available for use, and the remaining 10% are dedicated to administrative and other purposes.

Background

The United States uses ten-digit telephone numbers, which are organized in accordance with the North American Numbering Plan (NANP).2 The NANP divides the country into separate geographic areas called numbering plan areas (NPAs), more commonly called area codes. Calls between these areas generally require dialing the three-digit area code, followed by a seven-digit local telephone number.

When the NANP was established in 1947, only 86 area codes were assigned to carriers in the United States.3 Only 61 new codes were added during the next 50 years. But the rate of activation has increased dramatically since then. Between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2000, 84 new codes were activated in the United States. Because the remaining supply of unassigned area codes is dwindling, and because a premature exhaust of area codes imposes significant costs on consumers, the Commission has taken a number of steps to ensure that the limited numbering resources are used efficiently. Among other things, the Commission

1 See Numbering Resource Optimization, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 99-200, FCC 00-104, 15 FCC Rcd 7574 (rel. Mar. 31, 2000) (March 2000 NRO Order). Numbering Resource Optimization, Order, CC Docket No. 99-200, FCC 00-280 (rel July 31, 2000). (July 2000 NRO Order) Numbering Resource Optimization, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98 and CC Docket No. 99-200, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-2000) (rel. Dec. 29, 2000) (December 2000 Order).

2 The North American Numbering Plan is used in the United States and its territories; and in Canada, Bermuda, and many Caribbean nations, including Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Turks & Caicos. The data contained in this report are all limited to the United States and its overseas territories.

3 “Nationwide Numbering Plan and Dialing Procedures – Efficient Code Utilization and Conservation Program,” Memorandum from AT&T Assistant Vice President of Engineering (R. H. Kaschner) to Commercial Managers, page 1 (Mar. 25, 1974). requires carriers to submit data on numbering resource utilization and forecasts twice a year. The information is submitted using FCC Form 502, which is called the Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) form.4 Carriers controlling numbering resources for the purpose of providing services to their customers are required to file their NRUF forms with the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA)5 by February 1 and August 1 of each year.6

The administrator compiles the information submitted into a database and provides that database to the Commission. 7 The information in this report represents number utilization as of June 30, 2001. It reflects all corrections and submissions that the NANPA had received through September 7, 2001.

Historically, local telephone companies received geographic numbers in blocks of 10,000. These blocks of 10,000 numbers are often called NXXs and are identifiable as the first three digits of a seven-digit telephone number.8 One of the recent efforts to improve the efficiency with which numbers are used is “thousands-block pooling,” which several state public service commissions have implemented. In states with thousands-block pooling, carriers holding excess blocks of 1,000 numbers (thousands-blocks) 9 are required to provide those blocks to a pooling administrator, which then assigns those thousands-blocks to other carriers in need of numbers.10 This effectively allows the assignment of numbers in blocks of 1,000 rather than 10,000. Most carriers are required to report their telephone number usage at the thousands-block level so that we could evaluate the efficacy of telephone number pooling. Carriers that meet the statutory definition of “rural telephone company” 11 and operate in non pooling areas are required to submit their number usage at the NXX level, however.

4 See Numbering Resource Optimization, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 99-200, FCC 00-104, 15 FCC Rcd 7574 (rel. Mar. 31, 2000) (NRO Order). This form and most other FCC forms can be downloaded from www.fcc.gov/formpage.html.

5 The current NANPA is NeuStar, Inc.

6 Numbering Resource Optimization, Order, CC Docket No. 99-200, FCC 00-280 (rel. July 31, 2000). On August 1, carriers are required to report data as of June 30. The data for December 31 must be filed by the following February 1.

7 The NANPA’s database is continually updated because not all carriers filed by the prescribed date, and because carriers sometimes file updated information throughout the year.

8 A ten-thousands block is the block of 10,000 telephone numbers that have the same area code and the same NXX.

9 A thousands-block is the block of 1,000 telephone numbers that have the same area code, the same NXX and the same thousands digit.

10 The current pooling administrator is NeuStar, Inc., which is also the NANPA. See Federal Communications Commission's Common Carrier Bureau Selects NeuStar, Inc. as National Thousands-Block Number Pooling Administrator, Press Release (rel. June 18, 2001).

11 47 U.S.C. § 153(37).

2 In this report, we present utilization data for four types of carriers: 12

· Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), · Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), · Cellular/PCS Carriers, and · Paging Carriers.

From the carriers’ submissions, numbering resources in the following six categories can be determined:

· assigned, · intermediate, · reserved, · aging, · administrative, and · available.

An assigned number is one that is in use by an end-user customer. Intermediate numbers are those that one carrier has assigned to another carrier (or to a non-carrier) so that the numbers may then be assigned to an end user. Reserved numbers are those that are being held by the service provider at the request of an end user for future use. Aging numbers are those that are being held out of use by the carrier for a period of time after the end user that last used it discontinues service. Administrative numbers include test numbers and other numbers used for network purposes. Available numbers are those that are generally available for assignment to customers.13

Some carriers receive telephone numbers from other carriers. When this occurs, the carrier that received its numbers from another carrier (as opposed to directly from the NANPA) is required to report utilization data for those numbers, and to mark those numbers as having been received from other carriers.14

The vast majority of numbering resources reported were part of geographic area codes. That is, the numbers were part of area codes that are associated with specific regions of the United States. Carriers are also required to report utilization on some non-geographic area codes,

12 Carriers classified themselves in a variety of ways on their NRUF forms, but were aggregated into four categories for the purposes of this report. Also, carriers may provide multiple types of services, but must indicate only their primary line of business on FCC Form 502.

13 For precise definitions of these categories see March 2000 NRO Order.

14 This means that sometimes more than one carrier can report utilization data for the same thousands-block (or ten-thousands block). Carriers receiving numbers from another carrier are required to report utilization data for those numbers on a different page (of FCC Form 502) than the page that carriers use to report numbers received directly from the NANPA. Not all carriers that received numbers from other carriers filed on the correct page, however, so within the database it can appear that more than one carrier has reported data for the same block of numbers. Carriers that receive numbers from other carriers are also required, of course, to report on any telephone numbers received from the NANPA.

3 such as 500 numbers and 900 numbers (which are described later in this report). Carriers for the first time reported utilization data for these area codes.

Other types of carriers use non-geographic numbering resources as well. Long distance carriers use millions of numbers to provide toll-free services using non-geographic area codes such as 800, 888, 877 and so forth. These numbering resources are managed separately. Those resources are neither surveyed on FCC Form 502, nor included in this report.

Analysis and Results

Table 1 shows the total quantity of telephone numbers reported by carriers and the number of 10,000 blocks (or NXXs) that contained these numbers. Table 1 also shows the quantity of telephone numbers in each of the six categories and the percentages of telephone numbers that are in each category.

Carriers have reported usage data for about 115,500 geographic NXXs. This is up from 111,000 NXXs in the previous filing (data for December 31, 2000). As the NANPA calculates that about 124,000 NXXs have been assigned to United States carriers,15 the third round of information submitted (data for June 30, 2001) appears to have garnered usable information on over 93% of the geographic numbering resources assigned to carriers in the United States. Although reporting is up from the last filing, many carriers still had not provided usable utilization data by September 7, 2001. As frequently happens in any situation where carriers are faced with new reporting requirements, the reliability of the data continues to improve with subsequent filings.16

Among filing carriers, 470 million telephone numbers are reported as being assigned and more than 600 million are reported to be available for assignment, indicating that the quantity of numbers available for assignment exceeds the number already assigned. These 600 million available numbers do not include any telephone numbers in NXXs that had not yet been assigned to a carrier. As more NXXs are assigned to carriers by the NANPA, and more area codes are opened up, more numbers will become available. Intermediate, reserved, aging and administrative categories collectively account for another 110 million telephone numbers.

Table 2 presents utilization statistics for carriers that reported at the thousands-block level (carriers that do not meet the statutory definition of a rural carrier are required to report at the thousands-block level). Table 3 presents statistics for rural carriers, which reported at the 10,000 block level (carriers that meet the statutory definition of a rural carrier are required to

15 The NANPA lists the codes that have been assigned on their web site at www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/co_code_assignments.html.

16 For instance, one company had incorrectly reported millions of “intermediate” numbers as “reserved” numbers in its previous (December 31, 2000) filing, but corrected that error in its current filing. We are working with the NANPA and the carriers to improve the data and the quality of the submissions. The submissions continue to get better with each subsequent filing.

4 report at the 10,000 block level).17 As might be expected, overall utilization rates are reported to be lower in rural areas (17% of telephone numbers are assigned to end users) than in more urban areas (42% of telephone numbers are assigned to end users).

Table 4 focuses on the percentages of NXX blocks that were reported as being utilized. After thousands-blocks were rolled up into whole NXXs, the utilization rate for those NXXs was calculated by dividing the quantity of assigned numbers by the quantity of numbers reported in the NXX. For each type of carrier, the data were sorted by decreasing utilization rates. Then, separately, for each type of carrier, the NXXs were divided into ten evenly sized groups (i.e., deciles). The first group contained the most utilized NXXs, and the last group contained the least utilized NXXs. Then, for each group, the lowest utilization rate was reported. Table 4 shows the results for all reporting carriers, as well as details for carriers that reported at the thousands-block level and the NXX level.

Table 5 shows utilization statistics for carriers on a state-by-state basis. As might be expected, states that are relatively rural and have low population densities have fewer telephone numbers assigned to end-user customers, and have a lower percentage of numbers that have been assigned to end-user customers than in more urban, populous states. Again, carriers report for only those numbers that have been assigned to them, so the quantity of available numbers does not include any of the NXXs in the state that had not yet been assigned to a carrier.

Table 6 shows similar utilization statistics for every area code. It also shows the state in which each area code is used and the month the area code was opened.

Table 7 shows the number of carriers reporting telephone number utilization data for each state. Carriers are required to report their NRUF data at the Operating Company Number (OCN) level.18 Carriers typically obtain one or more OCNs per state in which they operate. The number of carriers in each state is based on the number of OCNs reported in each state.

Table 8 shows the number of thousands-blocks that have been pooled and the number of thousands-blocks that are potentially poolable. A thousands-block is potentially poolable when 90% or more of the numbers are classified as available for assignment. Several states have been given the authority to implement thousands-block pooling, and other states may be considering pooling.19 The Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) was used to determine the number of thousands-blocks that have been pooled. NeuStar’s NRUF database was used to determine the number of thousands-blocks where at least 90% of the numbers were available, and so were potentially poolable. Pooling utilizes number porting technology,

17 See March 2000 NRO Order, para 71. A small number of rural carriers may operate in areas with pooling. As all carriers in pooling areas are required to report at the thousands-block level, rural carriers in pooling areas, if any, should be included in Table 2 rather than Table 3.

18 See NRO Order. Carriers obtain OCNs from the National Exchange Carrier Association.

19 See, e.g., Numbering Resource Optimization, Order, CC Docket Nos. 99-200, 96-98, DA 01-2013 (rel. Aug. 24, 2001) (granting thousands-block number pooling authority to the Michigan and North Carolina state Commissions). This Order also provides citations to all previous authorizations for thousands-block pooling.

5 which the FCC required to be implemented in the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) as defined in 1996.20 Because pooling is most readily available in the top 100 MSAs, Table 8 shows the number of thousands-blocks that could be available if pooling were implemented in all areas within the top 100 MSAs. Because states can, under certain circumstances, implement pooling in areas outside of the top 100 MSAs,21 Table 8 also shows the number of thousands-blocks that could be available if pooling were implemented statewide. Given that states may choose not to implement pooling in all areas of the state where pooling is possible, and that carriers with poolable numbering resources are allowed to retain a six-month inventory of numbers in each rate center, the numbers shown in Table 8 are overstated. Wireless carriers are listed separately from CLECs and ILECs because wireless carriers are not required to implement the underlying technology until November 24, 2002.22

Figures 1 through 4 focus on utilization rates as a function of the number of NXXs that the carriers hold in a local geographic area. Where carriers have sought and received multiple NXXs within the same area, they should generally be able to achieve higher utilization rates. We have used “rate centers” as our measure of local geographic area because NXXs are assigned to carriers on a rate center basis.23

Figure 1 shows a scatter diagram of average ILEC utilization rates as a function of the number of NXXs in a rate center held by the same carrier. 24 These points were calculated using a two-step process. First, NXXs were grouped, depending on the number of NXXs held by the same carrier within the same rate center. Second, the average utilization rates were calculated for each of the groups (i.e., from 1 NXX per rate center through 100 NXXs per rate center). For example, for all instances where a carrier reported exactly one NXX in a rate center, the average utilization rate was calculated. A similar average utilization rate was calculated for all instances where a carrier reported exactly 2 NXXs in a rate center, 3 NXXs

20 See Telephone Number Portability, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 8352, 8393 (1996).

21 See, e.g., Maine Public Utilities Commission Petition for Additional Delegated Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 16440, 16452 (1999) (granting thousands-block pooling authority when a majority of the wireline carriers operating in Maine were LNP-capable); see also Numbering Resource Optimization, Order, CC Docket Nos. 99-200 and 96-98, paras. 32-34 (rel. Mar. 14, 2001) (granting thousands-block pooling authority to the Vermont Public Service Board and the Public Service Commission of West Virginia when a majority of the wireline carriers were LNP-capable).

22 See Numbering Resource Optimization, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98 and CC Docket No. 99-200, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-200, paras. 47-51 (2000).

23 A rate center is a geographic area used to determine distances and prices for local and long distance calls.

24 For the purposes of these figures, the utilization rate is defined as the number of telephone numbers assigned to end-user customers divided by the number of telephone numbers in that NXX (10,000).

6 in a rate center, and so on through 100 NXXs in a rate center.25 Figures 2 through 4 show the same information for CLECs, Cellular/PCS carriers and paging carriers.

Table 9 shows utilization data for two specialized NPAs: 500 and 900. The 500 NPA is used for “follow me” service, which, among other things, can be used to route an incoming call to different phone numbers, depending on the time of day. The 900 NPA is used for information services where the caller is not charged the normal long distance rates set by the caller’s long distance carrier, but usually is charged much higher prices that are preset by the call’s recipient. Carriers reported utilization data for these specialized NPAs for the first time in the June 2001 filings.26

Table 10 compares the databases that can be used to identify which carriers hold which numbering resources. There are three different databases that contain sources of NPA-NXX assignment information: NANPA’s NRUF database, NANPA’s database of NPA-NXX assignments, and the LERG. 27 For a variety of reasons, the databases are not identical. Timing is a large factor in this. For instance, carriers sometimes report utilization on NXXs in anticipation of receiving them. Also, during an area code split, a carrier will maintain both the old and new NPA-NXXs in its systems during the phase called permissive dialing.28 After permissive dialing ends, the carrier should remove the old NPA-NXXs from its systems. Carriers may not do this immediately, however, and may report utilization data on both the old and the new NPA-NXXs. The carrier may not update the LERG immediately, either. Thus, the NRUF database, the LERG and the NANPA assignment database may not be identical.

Table 11 shows that utilization rates generally increased for those NXXs that were reported by the same carriers when filing their December 31, 2000 and June 30, 2001 data. When attempting to compare utilization rates over time, one might simply compare Table 1 of this report (showing that the utilization across all carriers was 39.6%) with Table 1 of the previous report, (showing that utilization across all carriers was 40.1%) and conclude that number utilization rates had declined during the last half year. This conclusion, however, would be erroneous. More carriers submitted usable utilization information for this filing than for the previous filing, and some carriers reported on more of their numbering resources in this filing. Table 11 accounts for this by examining utilization rates for only those NXXs that were reported by the same carrier in both filings. Because subscribership is growing over time, and because carriers are starting to use their numbering resources more efficiently,

25 In order to prevent disclosure of proprietary information, we have grouped some individual data points into clusters so that the specific utilization data for individual carriers cannot be divined by comparing the individual plot points with other data sources.

26 See Common Carrier Bureau Clarifies That Future Filings of Numbering Utilization and Forecast Reports Must Include Numbering Resources in the 500 and 900 NPAs, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 99-200, (rel. June 11, 2001).

27 The NANPA’s assignment database can be found online at www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/co_code_assignments1.html . The LERG is published monthly by Telcordia Technologies.

28 During permissive dialing, a phone number may be called by using either the old or the new NPA.

7 utilization rates for existing NXXs should improve. The apparent decrease in ILEC utilization is likely an artifact of ILECs’ improved reporting in this filing. For CLECs and Cellular/PCS carriers, utilization improved over the six-month period after the previous filing.

Table 12 shows, on a quarterly basis, the number of NXX assignments made by the NANPA, the number of NXXs that have been returned to the NANPA, and the number of net NXX assignments to carriers. The table shows that fewer NXXs are being issued each quarter, and the number of NXXs that the carriers have returned to the NANPA for reassignment is up sharply.

Technical Details

The following material provides technical details on the data and procedures used in this analysis. With respect to Tables 1 through 3, the reader should note that the number of unique NXXs for each carrier type does not add up to the total number of unique NXXs. 29 This occurs when multiple carriers report data for the same numbering resource. In addition, some carriers reported at the thousands-block level and other carriers reported at the NXX level for the same NXX.

In the past, when numbers were transferred from an ILEC to another carrier, the ILEC classified those numbers as “assigned” in its own system, because those numbers could not be used elsewhere. According to the Commission’s recent standardized definitions, however, these numbers are classified as “intermediate” numbers. In the past, many large ILECs found it difficult to report these numbers as intermediate numbers. Because we were unable to match reports of received numbers with reports of intermediate numbers, we did not examine utilization data for blocks of numbers where carriers indicated that the numbers in the block were received from another carrier. The idea was to avoid counting some numbers as being assigned multiple times. Unfortunately, this resulted in an undercount of cellular/PCS numbers and paging numbers, both of which receive substantial quantities of numbers from ILECs. Because most ILECs are getting better at reporting, this report does utilize data from blocks of numbers where carriers indicated that the numbers in the block were received from another carrier. To the extent that ILECs and CLECs fail to properly report numbers that they give to other carriers as intermediate numbers, the percentage of numbers we report as being assigned will be overstated.

For ease of comparison, Figures 1 through 4 plot utilization rates only when there were 100 or fewer NXXs in a rate center. Some ILECs and Cellular/PCS carriers reported holding more than 100 unique NXXs in a single rate center. For both types of carriers, however, the average utilization rates remained unchanged when there were more than 100 NXXs in a rate center. The figures therefore show only the data where the carriers reported up to 100 NXXs within a rate center, so comparisons across carrier types could be made more easily.

29 In some instances, more than one carrier reported numbering utilization data for the same NPA-NXX. Tables 1 through 3 report on the number of unique NPA-NXXs that were reported by each carrier type and by the industry as a whole.

8 In some instances, some CLECs reported a large number of NXXs in a single rate center. Although most CLECs do not have enough end-user lines in a rate center to warrant having so many NXXs in that rate center, there are at least two reasons that a CLEC would do so. First, some CLECs provide service to unified messaging services, such as e-fax and j-fax. 30 These services use large quantities of numbers.31 Second, some CLECs are operating in areas undergoing area code splits, where the area code will change for many of its NXXs. When this happens, a CLEC may maintain two NXXs (one NXX using the old area code, and another NXX using the new area code) in its systems for a period of time so that callers can adapt to the new area code.

* * * *

We invite users of this information to provide suggestions for improved data collection and analysis by 1) using the attached customer response form; 2) e-mailing comments to [email protected]; or 3) calling the Industry Analysis Division at (202) 418-0940; for TTY, call (202) 418-0484.

30 Unified messaging services allow end users to receive multiple types of messages (such as voicemail and faxes) at one phone number. Typically, these messages are then digitized and e-mailed to the end user. Because the end user does not need to answer the call personally, the messages can be sent to any phone number in the United States. Thus, unified messaging service providers can operate efficiently by obtaining a large number of NXXs in a single rate center.

31 Carriers assigning numbers to unified messaging services are required to report numbers as “intermediate” until the numbers are assigned by the unified messaging service providers to end users. Some carriers have assigned large quantities of numbers to unified messaging services but may not have received information back from the unified messaging company as to whether any of those numbers have been assigned to end users. This may explain why some carriers reported dozens of NXXs in a single rate center, yet still classified all those numbers as intermediate rather than assigned.

9 Table 1 Number Utilization by Carrier Type as of June 30, 2001 Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available1 Total Unique Carrier Type (Thousands of telephone numbers) NXXs ILEC 305,938 24,758 7,855 18,475 9,209 221,173 587,407 59,515 CLEC 27,942 1,497 5,525 1,822 1,868 217,305 255,959 27,338 Cellular/PCS 111,734 8,059 1,825 9,872 5,716 109,581 246,786 23,757 Paging 23,621 12,022 1,355 1,999 266 55,869 95,131 5,813 All Reporting Carriers 469,235 46,335 16,561 32,167 17,058 603,928 1,185,284 115,4992 ILEC 52.1% 4.2% 1.3% 3.1% 1.6% 37.7% 100.0% CLEC 10.9% 0.6% 2.2% 0.7% 0.7% 84.9% 100.0% Cellular/PCS 45.3% 3.3% 0.7% 4.0% 2.3% 44.4% 100.0% Paging 24.8% 12.6% 1.4% 2.1% 0.3% 58.7% 100.0% All Reporting Carriers 39.6% 3.9% 1.4% 2.7% 1.4% 51.0% 100.0%

Table 2 Detail of Number Utilization: Carriers that Reported at the Thousands-block Level

Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available1 Total Unique Carrier Type (Thousands of telephone numbers) NXXs ILEC 290,522 22,189 3,719 17,150 8,423 156,528 498,531 50,720 CLEC 27,508 1,484 5,334 1,791 1,843 207,285 245,244 26,289 Cellular/PCS 109,225 8,004 1,129 9,651 5,670 102,732 236,411 22,744 Paging 23,366 12,022 1,328 1,985 206 54,861 93,768 5,679 All Reporting Carriers 450,621 43,698 11,510 30,577 16,143 521,406 1,073,954 104,6152

ILEC 58.3% 4.5% 0.7% 3.4% 1.7% 31.4% 100.0% CLEC 11.2% 0.6% 2.2% 0.7% 0.8% 84.5% 100.0% Cellular/PCS 46.2% 3.4% 0.5% 4.1% 2.4% 43.5% 100.0% Paging 24.9% 12.8% 1.4% 2.1% 0.2% 58.5% 100.0% All Reporting Carriers 42.0% 4.1% 1.1% 2.8% 1.5% 48.6% 100.0%

Table 3 Detail of Number Utilization: Carriers that Reported at the NXX Level

Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available1 Total Unique Carrier Type (Thousands of telephone numbers) NXXs ILEC 15,416 2,569 4,136 1,325 786 64,645 88,876 8,819 CLEC 435 13 191 31 24 10,020 10,715 1,083 Cellular/PCS 2,509 55 696 221 46 6,848 10,375 1,028 Paging 255 0 27 14 59 1,008 1,363 135 All Reporting Carriers 18,614 2,637 5,051 1,591 915 82,522 119,831 11,0422

ILEC 17.3% 2.9% 4.7% 1.5% 0.9% 72.7% 100.0% CLEC 4.1% 0.1% 1.8% 0.3% 0.2% 93.5% 100.0% Cellular/PCS 24.2% 0.5% 6.7% 2.1% 0.4% 66.0% 100.0% Paging 18.7% 0.0% 2.0% 1.0% 4.3% 74.0% 100.0% All Reporting Carriers 16.7% 2.4% 4.5% 1.4% 0.8% 74.1% 100.0%

1 Includes only telephone numbers in NXXs assigned to carriers and are therefore available for assignment to customers. Does not include any numbers in NXXs that have not yet been assigned to carriers. 2 Unduplicated total. Note: Figures may not add due to rounding. Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast forms filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of Sept. 7, 2001 (93% of NXXs reported). Table 4 Dispersion of NXX Utilization Rates by Carrier Type as of June 30, 2001

All Carriers NXXs Sorted by Decreasing Utilization Rates ILECs CLECs Cellular/PCS Paging Maximum utilization rate reported 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Lower bound of top 10% NXXs 90.0% 37.0% 91.9% 70.8% Lower bound of top 20% NXXs 87.1% 10.5% 84.6% 48.9% Lower bound of top 30% NXXs 79.0% 4.2% 74.8% 34.1% Lower bound of top 40% NXXs 70.7% 1.5% 61.4% 22.4% Lower bound of top 50% NXXs 57.9% 0.4% 46.3% 13.2% Lower bound of top 60% NXXs 41.4% 0.2% 29.6% 6.4% Lower bound of top 70% NXXs 24.4% 0.0% 14.1% 2.0% Lower bound of top 80% NXXs 11.8% 0.0% 3.6% 0.2% Lower bound of top 90% NXXs 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Minimum utilization rate reported 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Carriers that Reported at the Thousands-block Level NXXs Sorted by Decreasing Utilization Rates ILECs CLECs Cellular/PCS Paging Maximum utilization rate reported 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Lower bound of top 10% NXXs 91.1% 38.7% 92.0% 71.0% Lower bound of top 20% NXXs 86.0% 10.9% 85.0% 49.3% Lower bound of top 30% NXXs 81.4% 4.3% 75.8% 34.4% Lower bound of top 40% NXXs 75.6% 1.6% 62.8% 23.0% Lower bound of top 50% NXXs 66.7% 0.5% 48.1% 13.3% Lower bound of top 60% NXXs 54.2% 0.2% 31.7% 6.4% Lower bound of top 70% NXXs 38.1% 0.0% 16.1% 2.1% Lower bound of top 80% NXXs 21.5% 0.0% 4.4% 2.0% Lower bound of top 90% NXXs 7.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Minimum utilization rate reported 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Carriers that Reported at the NXX Level NXXs Sorted by Decreasing Utilization Rates ILECs CLECs Cellular/PCS Paging Maximum utilization rate reported 100.0% 99.0% 100.0% 94.9% Lower bound of top 10% NXXs 51.0% 10.4% 75.0% 49.9% Lower bound of top 20% NXXs 28.0% 3.3% 52.8% 21.5% Lower bound of top 30% NXXs 17.9% 1.0% 31.2% 16.0% Lower bound of top 40% NXXs 11.4% 0.3% 14.9% 14.1% Lower bound of top 50% NXXs 8.4% 0.2% 5.8% 12.3% Lower bound of top 60% NXXs 5.9% 0.1% 2.5% 10.0% Lower bound of top 70% NXXs 4.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.9% Lower bound of top 80% NXXs 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% Lower bound of top 90% NXXs 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Minimum utilization rate reported 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast forms filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of September 7, 2001. Table 5 Telephone Number Utilization by State as of June 30, 2001

Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Administrative Available1 Total State/Jurisdiction 000s % 000s % 000s % 000s % 000s % 000s % 000s Alabama 6,359 36.7 1,074 6.2 169 1.0 514 3.0 332 1.9 8,866 51.2 17,314 Alaska 965 18.7 21 0.4 73 1.4 74 1.4 28 0.5 3,992 77.5 5,153 Arizona 9,539 52.0 431 2.4 307 1.7 629 3.4 251 1.4 7,183 39.2 18,340 Arkansas 3,015 26.4 772 6.8 129 1.1 208 1.8 84 0.7 7,218 63.2 11,426 California 57,879 40.7 8,391 5.9 1,568 1.1 4,022 2.8 1,916 1.3 68,500 48.1 142,276 Colorado 9,189 52.8 236 1.4 264 1.5 650 3.7 300 1.7 6,771 38.9 17,411 Connecticut 5,456 41.6 966 7.4 266 2.0 293 2.2 220 1.7 5,905 45.1 13,104 Delaware 1,725 38.3 67 1.5 17 0.4 81 1.8 48 1.1 2,563 57.0 4,500 District of Columbia 2,777 55.4 132 2.6 45 0.9 312 6.2 26 0.5 1,725 34.4 5,017 Florida 29,150 46.8 4,023 6.5 816 1.3 2,427 3.9 1,410 2.3 24,422 39.2 62,248 Georgia 15,042 42.7 2,353 6.7 827 2.4 1,181 3.4 624 1.8 15,160 43.1 35,187 Guam 55 50.0 2 1.8 1 0.9 2 1.8 1 0.9 48 43.6 110 Hawaii 2,278 49.0 109 2.3 10 0.2 132 2.8 70 1.5 2,049 44.1 4,648 Idaho 2,080 36.4 23 0.4 43 0.8 116 2.0 97 1.7 3,360 58.8 5,718 Illinois 20,019 38.1 2,995 5.7 1,695 3.2 1,255 2.4 764 1.5 25,845 49.2 52,572 Indiana 8,211 33.7 681 2.8 560 2.3 519 2.1 431 1.8 13,991 57.4 24,394 Iowa 3,980 24.7 140 0.9 205 1.3 267 1.7 492 3.1 11,010 68.4 16,095 Kansas 3,389 23.3 1,075 7.4 257 1.8 265 1.8 228 1.6 9,308 64.1 14,521 Kentucky 5,139 33.1 615 4.0 150 1.0 368 2.4 320 2.1 8,938 57.6 15,530 Louisiana 6,319 37.1 1,489 8.7 153 0.9 600 3.5 261 1.5 8,205 48.2 17,026 Maine 1,852 39.0 23 0.5 73 1.5 98 2.1 23 0.5 2,674 56.4 4,743 Maryland 10,523 42.2 614 2.5 128 0.5 685 2.7 304 1.2 12,663 50.8 24,917 Massachusetts 15,201 43.8 348 1.0 286 0.8 670 1.9 254 0.7 17,928 51.7 34,687 Michigan 13,932 32.6 892 2.1 509 1.2 918 2.1 723 1.7 25,821 60.3 42,795 Minnesota 8,846 38.5 277 1.2 1,310 5.7 574 2.5 311 1.4 11,638 50.7 22,955 Mississippi 2,991 27.5 777 7.1 205 1.9 240 2.2 113 1.0 6,543 60.2 10,868 Missouri 7,236 30.7 1,128 4.8 146 0.6 560 2.4 461 2.0 14,038 59.6 23,570 Montana 1,118 21.8 20 0.4 11 0.2 61 1.2 36 0.7 3,880 75.7 5,128 Nebraska 2,947 33.4 54 0.6 410 4.7 220 2.5 98 1.1 5,081 57.7 8,811 Nevada 4,056 49.8 497 6.1 44 0.5 254 3.1 129 1.6 3,172 38.9 8,152 New Hampshire 2,609 48.4 30 0.6 62 1.2 92 1.7 49 0.9 2,547 47.3 5,389 New Jersey 16,212 42.2 883 2.3 265 0.7 921 2.4 339 0.9 19,813 51.6 38,432 New Mexico 2,572 45.7 65 1.2 57 1.0 174 3.1 64 1.1 2,693 47.9 5,626 New York 33,495 54.1 1,649 2.7 1,151 1.9 2,252 3.6 743 1.2 22,667 36.6 61,957 North Carolina 13,170 40.6 1,688 5.2 339 1.0 996 3.1 486 1.5 15,797 48.6 32,476 North Dakota 860 17.9 47 1.0 64 1.3 49 1.0 30 0.6 3,753 78.1 4,803 Northern Marianas Is. 10 55.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 44.4 18 Ohio 16,175 37.3 1,086 2.5 422 1.0 994 2.3 650 1.5 23,993 55.4 43,321 Oklahoma 4,235 26.9 1,251 7.9 112 0.7 308 2.0 189 1.2 9,672 61.3 15,767 Oregon 5,883 44.2 135 1.0 142 1.1 401 3.0 203 1.5 6,543 49.2 13,306 Pennsylvania 19,748 36.8 741 1.4 465 0.9 1,129 2.1 379 0.7 31,274 58.2 53,736 Puerto Rico 3,635 57.5 32 0.5 78 1.2 325 5.1 13 0.2 2,235 35.4 6,318 Rhode Island 1,994 37.2 80 1.5 58 1.1 92 1.7 26 0.5 3,112 58.0 5,362 South Carolina 6,091 41.4 1,014 6.9 178 1.2 420 2.9 327 2.2 6,671 45.4 14,701 South Dakota 927 20.0 11 0.2 41 0.9 50 1.1 44 0.9 3,562 76.8 4,636 Tennessee 8,628 39.1 1,092 5.0 186 0.8 692 3.1 404 1.8 11,051 50.1 22,053 Texas 32,961 37.3 4,956 5.6 861 1.0 2,479 2.8 1,328 1.5 45,851 51.8 88,436 US Virgin Is. 114 46.9 3 1.2 31 12.8 27 11.1 2 0.8 65 26.7 243 Utah 4,472 45.9 148 1.5 202 2.1 275 2.8 167 1.7 4,487 46.0 9,751 Vermont 854 19.5 2 0.0 17 0.4 31 0.7 34 0.8 3,438 78.6 4,376 Virginia 12,522 44.8 469 1.7 332 1.2 896 3.2 259 0.9 13,472 48.2 27,950 Washington 11,463 45.8 320 1.3 451 1.8 810 3.2 467 1.9 11,504 46.0 25,015 West Virginia 1,922 28.9 40 0.6 28 0.4 117 1.8 33 0.5 4,522 67.9 6,661 Wisconsin 6,750 28.9 360 1.5 333 1.4 408 1.7 409 1.7 15,132 64.7 23,392 Wyoming 670 28.6 3 0.1 7 0.3 36 1.5 58 2.5 1,567 66.9 2,341 Totals 469,235 39.6 46,335 3.9 16,561 1.4 32,167 2.7 17,058 1.4 603,928 51.0 1,185,284

1 Includes only telephone numbers in NXXs assigned to carriers and are therefore available for assignment to customers. Does not include any numbers in NXXs that have not yet been assigned to carriers. Note: Figures may not add due to rounding. Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of June 30, 2001

Area Area Code Code State/Jurisdiction Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 201 New Jersey Jan-47 45.8% 2.2% 1.1% 2.4% 1.3% 47.3% 43 202 District of Columbia Jan-47 55.4% 2.6% 0.9% 6.2% 0.5% 34.4% 40 203 Connecticut Jan-47 42.2% 8.5% 2.1% 2.4% 1.5% 43.2% 38 205 Alabama Jan-47 42.5% 5.1% 0.5% 3.5% 2.3% 46.2% 38 206 Washington Jan-47 57.1% 2.4% 1.3% 4.4% 2.0% 32.9% 36 207 Maine Jan-47 39.0% 0.5% 1.5% 2.1% 0.5% 56.4% 42 208 Idaho Jan-47 36.4% 0.4% 0.7% 2.0% 1.7% 58.8% 55 209 California Jan-58 34.3% 5.1% 0.3% 1.9% 1.6% 56.8% 41 210 Texas Nov-92 45.8% 7.3% 0.8% 3.2% 1.3% 41.6% 35 212 New York Jan-47 77.9% 0.3% 2.1% 4.2% 1.2% 14.5% 31 213 California Jan-47 32.0% 10.8% 1.4% 3.3% 1.9% 50.6% 49 214 Texas Jan-47 49.3% 3.7% 1.1% 3.4% 1.5% 40.9% 46 215 Pennsylvania Jan-47 55.9% 3.0% 0.5% 3.3% 0.3% 37.1% 32 216 Ohio Jan-47 40.8% 3.1% 1.5% 3.3% 1.6% 49.8% 33 217 Illinois Jan-47 25.5% 1.1% 4.9% 1.3% 1.4% 65.9% 36 218 Minnesota Jan-47 21.8% 0.4% 9.1% 1.2% 0.7% 66.9% 57 219 Indiana Jan-47 37.8% 3.1% 4.6% 2.2% 1.6% 50.7% 54 225 Louisiana Aug-98 40.9% 7.7% 0.6% 3.4% 1.9% 45.6% 28 228 Mississippi Sep-97 30.8% 5.4% 1.6% 2.3% 1.4% 58.6% 24 229 Georgia Aug-00 29.4% 10.2% 0.7% 3.0% 1.0% 55.7% 28 231 Michigan Jun-99 26.6% 0.4% 0.3% 1.8% 1.4% 69.6% 28 234 Ohio Oct-00 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 240 Maryland Jun-97 15.7% 0.6% 0.6% 1.4% 3.6% 78.2% 41 248 Michigan May-97 38.8% 2.8% 1.1% 2.4% 1.7% 53.2% 33 251 Alabama Jun-01 33.8% 10.1% 2.9% 2.4% 0.9% 50.0% 22 252 North Carolina Mar-98 36.4% 0.4% 0.6% 2.6% 0.7% 59.6% 27 253 Washington Apr-97 49.8% 1.9% 1.2% 3.7% 1.8% 41.6% 35 254 Texas May-97 29.1% 3.7% 0.3% 2.7% 1.4% 62.7% 40 256 Alabama Mar-98 36.6% 6.4% 0.4% 3.2% 2.0% 51.4% 34 262 Wisconsin Sep-99 24.1% 0.9% 1.3% 1.4% 2.2% 70.3% 36 267 Pennsylvania Jul-99 10.4% 1.1% 0.4% 0.6% 2.3% 85.3% 33 270 Kentucky Apr-99 24.3% 4.6% 0.5% 1.7% 1.6% 67.2% 41 281 Texas Nov-96 44.6% 7.2% 0.9% 4.2% 1.0% 42.2% 39 301 Maryland Jan-47 56.5% 3.3% 0.7% 3.9% 0.3% 35.3% 31 302 Delaware Jan-47 38.3% 1.5% 0.4% 1.8% 1.1% 57.0% 32 303 Colorado Jan-47 68.6% 1.3% 1.4% 4.1% 1.8% 22.8% 31 304 West Virginia Jan-47 28.9% 0.6% 0.4% 1.8% 0.5% 67.9% 40 305 Florida Jan-47 59.1% 10.8% 0.8% 4.8% 1.8% 22.8% 36 307 Wyoming Jan-47 28.6% 0.1% 0.3% 1.5% 2.5% 66.9% 30 308 Nebraska Jan-55 18.6% 0.6% 9.0% 1.7% 1.0% 69.1% 37 309 Illinois Jan-57 30.2% 10.1% 6.9% 1.3% 1.7% 49.8% 45 310 California Nov-91 55.2% 8.2% 0.7% 3.8% 1.4% 30.7% 48 312 Illinois Jan-47 41.0% 8.3% 2.5% 2.3% 1.3% 44.6% 41 313 Michigan Jan-47 37.3% 5.8% 1.1% 2.7% 2.5% 50.7% 34 314 Missouri Jan-47 42.6% 9.8% 1.1% 3.1% 2.4% 41.1% 30 315 New York Jan-47 39.4% 4.1% 2.5% 2.8% 0.8% 50.4% 33 316 Kansas Jan-47 22.2% 5.4% 0.2% 2.6% 3.0% 66.7% 41 317 Indiana Jan-47 39.0% 3.6% 2.4% 2.6% 2.4% 50.0% 39 318 Louisiana Jan-57 33.9% 8.3% 0.4% 2.9% 1.1% 53.4% 37 319 Iowa Jan-47 28.9% 1.5% 0.4% 2.4% 2.3% 64.4% 78 320 Minnesota Mar-96 25.1% 0.6% 9.8% 3.1% 0.7% 60.7% 61 321 Florida Nov-99 32.7% 5.0% 1.6% 2.4% 2.1% 56.1% 40 323 California Jun-98 36.2% 4.3% 1.2% 3.5% 0.9% 53.9% 47 330 Ohio Mar-96 38.2% 3.4% 0.7% 2.2% 1.7% 53.8% 32 334 Alabama Jan-95 31.8% 5.7% 1.2% 2.5% 1.8% 57.0% 46 Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of June 30, 2001

Area Area Code Code State/Jurisdiction Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 336 North Carolina Dec-97 42.2% 7.1% 0.9% 3.0% 1.4% 46.7% 46 337 Louisiana Oct-99 34.8% 10.5% 0.6% 3.3% 1.2% 49.6% 35 339 Massachusetts May-01 2.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 97.6% 8 340 US Virgin Islands Jun-97 46.9% 1.2% 12.9% 11.2% 0.8% 26.9% 4 347 New York Oct-99 30.5% 1.4% 0.6% 1.3% 4.3% 61.9% 28 352 Florida Dec-95 44.0% 5.5% 0.6% 3.6% 1.6% 44.7% 29 360 Washington Jan-95 37.3% 1.0% 3.2% 2.7% 2.0% 53.9% 56 361 Texas Feb-99 28.4% 6.9% 1.3% 2.0% 1.3% 60.1% 29 386 Florida Feb-01 43.9% 7.3% 1.0% 3.0% 2.6% 42.3% 27 401 Rhode Island Jan-47 37.2% 1.5% 1.1% 1.7% 0.5% 58.0% 31 402 Nebraska Jan-47 39.1% 0.6% 3.0% 2.8% 1.2% 53.3% 45 404 Georgia Jan-47 59.1% 7.1% 1.3% 4.3% 2.5% 25.7% 42 405 Oklahoma Jan-47 34.1% 8.1% 1.1% 2.4% 1.3% 52.9% 43 406 Montana Jan-47 21.8% 0.4% 0.2% 1.2% 0.7% 75.7% 34 407 Florida Apr-88 50.2% 5.3% 0.9% 4.4% 1.4% 37.7% 41 408 California Jan-59 54.9% 6.5% 1.7% 3.8% 0.7% 32.4% 44 409 Texas Nov-82 29.4% 15.1% 0.4% 2.8% 1.2% 51.0% 33 410 Maryland Oct-91 60.2% 3.8% 0.3% 3.4% 0.3% 32.0% 29 412 Pennsylvania Jan-47 39.3% 1.4% 1.6% 2.4% 0.7% 54.6% 37 413 Massachusetts Jan-47 45.9% 0.8% 0.8% 1.5% 0.4% 50.7% 34 414 Wisconsin Jan-47 42.5% 3.8% 1.2% 2.8% 2.0% 47.7% 30 415 California Jan-47 47.3% 5.6% 1.8% 3.5% 1.2% 40.5% 44 417 Missouri Jan-50 29.0% 4.6% 0.4% 1.9% 0.8% 63.5% 44 419 Ohio Jan-47 36.0% 1.6% 1.0% 2.0% 1.5% 58.0% 48 423 Tennessee Sep-95 36.1% 4.3% 0.9% 3.0% 2.1% 53.6% 41 425 Washington Apr-97 47.3% 0.8% 1.9% 3.4% 1.9% 44.9% 38 434 Virginia Jun-01 13.6% 0.0% 3.3% 1.0% 0.9% 81.2% 12 435 Utah Sep-97 24.4% 0.5% 2.5% 1.2% 1.1% 70.4% 42 440 Ohio Aug-97 30.4% 2.5% 1.0% 1.8% 0.8% 63.5% 36 443 Maryland Jun-97 16.2% 0.8% 0.6% 1.3% 2.0% 79.2% 38 469 Texas Jul-99 15.2% 0.8% 2.3% 1.0% 2.2% 78.4% 34 478 Georgia Aug-00 39.3% 11.6% 2.0% 4.5% 1.6% 41.0% 26 480 Arizona Mar-99 63.5% 0.6% 1.5% 4.5% 0.9% 29.0% 31 484 Pennsylvania Jun-99 7.0% 0.7% 0.8% 0.4% 1.1% 90.1% 44 501 Arkansas Jan-47 30.4% 7.0% 1.1% 2.1% 0.8% 58.5% 37 502 Kentucky Jan-47 44.6% 6.3% 0.7% 3.2% 2.7% 42.4% 30 503 Oregon Jan-47 53.7% 1.4% 1.0% 3.4% 1.6% 38.8% 42 504 Louisiana Jan-47 42.7% 7.5% 1.2% 3.9% 1.9% 42.8% 36 505 New Mexico Jan-47 45.7% 1.2% 1.0% 3.1% 1.1% 47.9% 40 507 Minnesota Jan-54 24.3% 0.4% 11.2% 1.7% 0.8% 61.7% 68 508 Massachusetts Jul-88 51.5% 0.8% 0.9% 2.3% 0.7% 43.8% 41 509 Washington Jan-57 41.7% 0.5% 0.8% 2.4% 1.7% 52.9% 41 510 California Sep-91 43.2% 7.9% 1.6% 3.3% 1.4% 42.5% 39 512 Texas Jan-47 50.8% 5.6% 1.1% 3.3% 1.6% 37.6% 39 513 Ohio Jan-47 50.8% 2.0% 1.2% 3.1% 1.4% 41.4% 29 515 Iowa Jan-47 38.5% 1.1% 1.1% 2.1% 8.3% 48.9% 42 516 New York Jan-51 56.9% 2.3% 0.9% 2.9% 1.4% 35.5% 47 517 Michigan Jan-47 32.1% 1.0% 3.1% 3.0% 1.7% 59.2% 44 518 New York Jan-47 46.5% 1.3% 3.0% 2.5% 1.5% 45.1% 41 520 Arizona Mar-95 43.2% 2.2% 2.7% 3.1% 1.4% 47.4% 50 530 California Nov-97 31.3% 2.6% 3.4% 1.4% 1.1% 60.1% 49 540 Virginia Jul-95 34.3% 0.4% 1.3% 2.4% 1.0% 60.6% 52 541 Oregon Nov-95 35.7% 0.6% 1.1% 2.7% 1.4% 58.7% 56 559 California Nov-98 32.3% 5.7% 0.2% 2.2% 1.5% 58.2% 34 Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of June 30, 2001

Area Area Code Code State/Jurisdiction Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 561 Florida May-96 50.5% 8.3% 2.0% 3.6% 1.8% 33.8% 38 562 California Jan-97 37.5% 3.3% 0.6% 2.9% 1.5% 54.1% 47 563 Iowa Mar-01 26.7% 1.0% 0.8% 1.6% 1.5% 68.3% 35 570 Pennsylvania Dec-98 34.9% 0.6% 1.5% 2.6% 0.6% 59.7% 47 571 Virginia Mar-00 14.9% 0.4% 0.4% 1.7% 4.2% 78.4% 22 573 Missouri Jan-96 26.2% 3.1% 0.3% 2.3% 1.1% 67.0% 31 580 Oklahoma Nov-97 16.5% 7.5% 0.2% 1.1% 1.4% 73.4% 41 601 Mississippi Jan-47 28.9% 6.6% 1.6% 2.1% 1.2% 59.7% 41 602 Arizona Jan-47 63.5% 4.0% 0.6% 3.6% 1.5% 26.7% 39 603 New Hampshire Jan-47 48.4% 0.6% 1.2% 1.7% 0.9% 47.3% 46 605 South Dakota Jan-47 20.0% 0.2% 0.9% 1.1% 0.9% 76.8% 63 606 Kentucky Jan-55 29.1% 2.5% 1.8% 2.4% 2.0% 62.5% 20 607 New York Jan-54 33.0% 1.5% 2.6% 2.1% 0.3% 60.5% 31 608 Wisconsin Jan-55 30.0% 1.9% 2.1% 2.2% 1.7% 62.1% 63 609 New Jersey Jan-57 44.0% 1.5% 0.3% 2.9% 1.3% 49.9% 37 610 Pennsylvania Jan-94 57.4% 1.9% 0.8% 3.2% 0.4% 36.2% 49 612 Minnesota Jan-47 58.6% 1.4% 0.6% 3.8% 2.1% 33.5% 42 614 Ohio Jan-47 38.0% 2.5% 1.2% 2.4% 1.8% 54.0% 31 615 Tennessee Jan-54 43.7% 4.4% 0.8% 3.3% 1.9% 46.0% 44 616 Michigan Jan-47 38.3% 1.1% 1.2% 2.1% 1.7% 55.6% 42 617 Massachusetts Jan-47 56.2% 1.2% 1.0% 2.8% 0.8% 38.1% 40 618 Illinois Jan-47 27.2% 2.9% 6.3% 1.5% 2.4% 59.7% 47 619 California Jan-82 41.8% 6.6% 1.6% 3.4% 1.1% 45.5% 40 620 Kansas Feb-01 13.8% 9.5% 0.4% 1.0% 0.3% 75.2% 27 623 Arizona Mar-99 46.0% 1.4% 2.3% 2.9% 2.1% 45.2% 32 626 California Jun-97 37.6% 5.5% 0.9% 2.7% 1.4% 52.0% 47 630 Illinois Aug-96 40.2% 5.2% 1.7% 2.7% 1.2% 48.9% 38 631 New York Nov-99 40.0% 1.9% 1.9% 2.3% 1.9% 52.0% 38 636 Missouri May-99 24.3% 1.2% 0.8% 1.8% 4.0% 68.1% 26 641 Iowa Jul-00 14.4% 0.2% 1.6% 1.2% 2.2% 80.4% 51 646 New York Jul-99 47.8% 3.7% 2.9% 3.0% 2.8% 39.8% 36 650 California Aug-97 40.4% 5.9% 0.8% 2.3% 1.1% 49.5% 38 651 Minnesota Jul-98 54.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.6% 1.5% 36.6% 41 660 Missouri Oct-97 13.7% 1.8% 0.4% 1.1% 1.2% 81.9% 37 661 California Feb-99 32.8% 7.3% 0.2% 2.2% 1.4% 56.2% 43 662 Mississippi Apr-99 24.4% 8.6% 2.4% 2.3% 0.7% 61.6% 33 670 CNMI Jul-97 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 671 Guam Jul-97 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 678 Georgia Jan-98 26.0% 1.9% 2.8% 2.1% 1.6% 65.6% 54 682 Texas Oct-00 7.2% 1.0% 0.1% 0.4% 7.0% 84.5% 11 701 North Dakota Jan-47 17.9% 1.0% 1.3% 1.0% 0.6% 78.1% 50 702 Nevada Jan-47 57.4% 3.0% 0.6% 4.1% 1.5% 33.5% 34 703 Virginia Jan-47 57.8% 2.5% 1.0% 4.1% 0.6% 34.0% 38 704 North Carolina Jan-47 43.8% 8.1% 1.7% 3.5% 2.0% 40.9% 45 706 Georgia May-92 39.0% 8.3% 6.3% 2.6% 2.1% 41.8% 61 707 California Jan-59 29.5% 5.8% 0.8% 1.6% 1.2% 61.1% 49 708 Illinois Nov-89 38.7% 7.1% 2.1% 2.9% 1.1% 48.1% 39 712 Iowa Jan-47 16.7% 0.4% 2.3% 0.9% 0.9% 78.7% 78 713 Texas Jan-47 54.4% 9.2% 2.1% 3.6% 0.7% 30.0% 39 714 California Jan-51 49.2% 8.2% 0.7% 3.8% 1.1% 37.1% 49 715 Wisconsin Jan-47 24.5% 0.8% 1.2% 1.3% 1.1% 71.1% 82 716 New York Jan-47 58.2% 3.2% 2.5% 5.4% 0.7% 30.0% 38 717 Pennsylvania Jan-47 44.7% 1.0% 0.9% 2.2% 0.4% 50.9% 37 718 New York Sep-84 65.0% 0.2% 2.3% 5.9% 0.8% 25.8% 34 719 Colorado Mar-88 43.9% 1.0% 0.9% 3.4% 1.3% 49.4% 34 Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of June 30, 2001

Area Area Code Code State/Jurisdiction Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 720 Colorado Jun-98 40.8% 2.7% 3.9% 4.8% 2.1% 45.7% 25 724 Pennsylvania Feb-98 25.4% 0.9% 0.9% 1.4% 0.4% 71.1% 48 727 Florida Jul-98 46.2% 3.6% 0.7% 4.5% 4.1% 40.9% 37 731 Tennessee Feb-01 26.7% 6.9% 0.2% 2.0% 1.6% 62.7% 24 732 New Jersey Jun-97 45.2% 3.3% 0.6% 2.7% 0.5% 47.7% 35 734 Michigan Dec-97 27.3% 1.1% 0.7% 1.7% 1.6% 67.6% 37 740 Ohio Dec-97 28.4% 1.8% 0.4% 1.5% 1.5% 66.5% 32 757 Virginia Jul-96 45.7% 2.2% 0.6% 3.0% 0.9% 47.7% 32 760 California Mar-97 35.7% 4.1% 0.8% 2.5% 1.7% 55.2% 53 763 Minnesota Feb-00 42.8% 0.6% 1.6% 3.3% 2.3% 49.3% 40 765 Indiana Feb-97 24.7% 3.0% 0.9% 1.6% 1.3% 68.5% 49 770 Georgia Aug-95 60.5% 6.6% 0.7% 4.6% 1.8% 25.9% 36 773 Illinois Oct-96 48.5% 7.4% 1.4% 4.1% 1.5% 37.1% 37 774 Massachusetts May-01 2.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 2.3% 95.2% 19 775 Nevada Dec-98 40.1% 10.1% 0.4% 1.8% 1.8% 45.8% 32 781 Massachusetts Sep-97 37.7% 1.2% 0.7% 1.8% 0.5% 58.0% 42 785 Kansas Jul-97 23.1% 6.5% 5.1% 1.4% 1.2% 62.6% 39 786 Florida Mar-98 30.9% 2.3% 3.5% 2.3% 5.3% 55.6% 36 787 Puerto Rico Mar-96 57.6% 0.5% 1.2% 5.1% 0.2% 35.4% 10 801 Utah Jan-47 57.0% 2.0% 1.9% 3.7% 2.0% 33.5% 31 802 Vermont Jan-47 19.5% 0.1% 0.4% 0.7% 0.8% 78.6% 20 803 South Carolina Jan-47 41.7% 8.0% 2.1% 2.5% 2.4% 43.2% 53 804 Virginia Jun-73 47.2% 1.9% 1.7% 3.6% 0.8% 44.7% 39 805 California Jan-57 38.2% 4.9% 0.5% 2.3% 2.0% 52.1% 43 806 Texas Jan-57 22.0% 5.8% 0.3% 2.0% 1.0% 68.9% 41 808 Hawaii Jan-57 49.0% 2.4% 0.2% 2.8% 1.5% 44.1% 16 810 Michigan Dec-93 33.9% 3.1% 1.0% 2.6% 1.6% 57.9% 39 812 Indiana Jan-47 30.5% 1.2% 0.5% 1.9% 1.7% 64.2% 48 813 Florida Jan-53 50.3% 4.7% 1.0% 4.0% 4.2% 35.8% 40 814 Pennsylvania Jan-47 30.6% 0.7% 0.3% 1.5% 1.0% 65.9% 37 815 Illinois Jan-47 29.6% 3.9% 2.6% 1.6% 1.7% 60.6% 62 816 Missouri Jan-47 35.3% 4.3% 0.5% 3.1% 2.2% 54.6% 40 817 Texas Jan-53 38.8% 3.5% 0.9% 3.0% 1.1% 52.7% 46 818 California Jan-84 48.8% 8.6% 0.9% 3.5% 1.3% 36.9% 48 828 North Carolina Mar-98 39.1% 5.4% 1.2% 2.6% 1.8% 50.6% 39 830 Texas Jul-97 18.8% 2.4% 0.4% 1.6% 1.2% 75.6% 38 831 California Jul-98 31.2% 5.6% 0.2% 2.2% 2.0% 58.8% 37 832 Texas Jan-99 21.0% 1.9% 0.6% 1.5% 2.7% 72.1% 39 843 South Carolina Mar-98 41.5% 5.9% 0.3% 2.9% 2.1% 47.2% 45 845 New York Jun-00 42.1% 0.9% 1.4% 2.2% 0.8% 52.6% 44 847 Illinois Jan-96 52.0% 5.4% 2.9% 3.0% 1.1% 35.6% 40 850 Florida Jun-97 42.5% 4.1% 2.0% 3.5% 1.3% 46.6% 41 856 New Jersey Jun-99 32.3% 2.4% 0.3% 2.1% 0.5% 62.4% 33 857 Massachusetts May-01 2.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 6.8% 90.5% 20 858 California Jun-99 38.4% 3.7% 0.9% 2.4% 1.5% 53.1% 35 859 Kentucky Apr-00 36.9% 1.6% 1.2% 2.5% 2.2% 55.7% 39 860 Connecticut Aug-95 41.0% 6.1% 1.9% 2.0% 1.9% 47.1% 31 863 Florida Sep-99 33.2% 2.9% 0.7% 2.8% 2.5% 57.9% 32 864 South Carolina Dec-95 41.1% 6.8% 1.3% 3.2% 2.1% 45.5% 30 865 Tennessee Nov-99 47.0% 6.1% 0.9% 4.1% 2.2% 39.7% 29 870 Arkansas Apr-97 21.1% 6.4% 1.1% 1.5% 0.7% 69.3% 35 901 Tennessee Jan-47 45.1% 5.4% 1.4% 3.4% 1.4% 43.3% 34 903 Texas Nov-90 28.6% 5.2% 0.3% 2.1% 1.2% 62.6% 43 904 Florida Jan-65 45.4% 7.9% 0.9% 4.1% 1.8% 39.9% 48 906 Michigan Jan-61 14.1% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 1.0% 83.6% 18 Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of June 30, 2001

Area Area Code Code State/Jurisdiction Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 907 Alaska Jan-57 18.7% 0.4% 1.4% 1.4% 0.5% 77.5% 32 908 New Jersey Nov-90 31.5% 1.3% 0.7% 1.5% 1.4% 63.7% 45 909 California Nov-92 52.9% 5.9% 1.5% 3.1% 1.4% 35.2% 43 910 North Carolina Nov-93 35.5% 3.8% 0.5% 3.1% 1.3% 55.9% 38 912 Georgia Jan-54 29.9% 7.1% 1.9% 2.6% 1.2% 57.3% 49 913 Kansas Jan-47 36.0% 8.4% 0.7% 2.4% 2.0% 50.4% 32 914 New York Jan-47 47.2% 1.9% 1.4% 4.3% 1.0% 44.2% 52 915 Texas Jan-47 32.9% 4.4% 1.0% 2.7% 1.6% 57.4% 48 916 California Jan-47 44.6% 4.2% 1.8% 2.8% 1.3% 45.4% 38 917 New York Jan-92 60.2% 9.4% 0.5% 3.5% 0.9% 25.6% 31 918 Oklahoma Jan-53 28.5% 8.2% 0.7% 2.2% 0.9% 59.5% 51 919 North Carolina Jan-54 45.2% 4.4% 1.2% 3.3% 1.5% 44.6% 44 920 Wisconsin Jul-97 26.7% 1.0% 1.3% 1.4% 1.9% 67.7% 54 925 California Mar-98 32.1% 5.3% 1.4% 1.9% 1.4% 57.9% 40 928 Arizona Jun-01 11.9% 0.4% 1.1% 1.5% 0.9% 84.2% 18 931 Tennessee Sep-97 27.2% 4.2% 0.4% 2.5% 1.7% 63.9% 39 936 Texas Feb-00 25.1% 8.1% 0.4% 2.0% 0.9% 63.4% 32 937 Ohio Sep-96 35.8% 3.3% 0.9% 2.1% 1.5% 56.5% 29 940 Texas May-97 24.2% 4.4% 0.3% 1.7% 1.8% 67.6% 48 941 Florida May-95 43.2% 2.9% 0.9% 4.3% 1.8% 46.9% 36 949 California Apr-98 39.0% 4.6% 0.8% 2.9% 1.5% 51.2% 45 952 Minnesota Feb-00 47.3% 3.1% 3.0% 2.5% 1.8% 42.3% 37 954 Florida Sep-95 51.8% 11.9% 2.4% 4.1% 2.1% 27.7% 43 956 Texas Jul-97 36.2% 8.6% 2.3% 3.3% 3.4% 46.2% 25 970 Colorado Apr-95 39.1% 0.8% 0.7% 2.8% 1.8% 54.8% 37 971 Oregon Oct-00 4.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 93.9% 19 972 Texas Sep-96 52.2% 3.4% 1.2% 3.3% 1.7% 38.2% 40 973 New Jersey Jun-97 49.0% 2.6% 0.9% 2.7% 0.5% 44.3% 42 978 Massachusetts Sep-97 37.5% 1.2% 1.0% 1.4% 0.5% 58.5% 43 979 Texas Feb-00 19.5% 6.6% 0.3% 2.0% 2.9% 68.8% 37 980 North Carolina Apr-01 4.0% 0.6% 0.1% 2.6% 1.3% 91.5% 8 985 Louisiana Feb-01 29.8% 11.1% 2.0% 4.4% 1.5% 51.3% 24 989 Michigan Apr-01 27.3% 0.6% 1.2% 1.1% 1.3% 68.4% 25

Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast forms filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of September 7, 2001, and area code information from NANPA as of October 15, 2001. Table 7 Number of Carriers Reporting Numbering Resources as of June 30, 20011

Paging Total State/Jurisdiction ILECs2 CLECs2 Cellular/PCS2 Carriers2 Carriers Alabama 25 16 23 8 72 Alaska 18 3 9 2 32 Arizona 19 23 14 11 67 Arkansas 25 11 10 7 53 California 29 51 23 20 123 Colorado 26 20 17 6 69 Connecticut 2 22 7 8 39 Delaware 1 17 6 8 32 District of Columbia 2 25 5 8 40 Florida 14 44 25 14 97 Georgia 36 43 26 10 115 Guam 0 0 3 1 4 Hawaii 2 3 7 4 16 Idaho 21 11 18 6 56 Illinois 51 37 27 12 127 Indiana 40 32 24 12 108 Iowa 154 35 22 4 215 Kansas 34 19 15 7 75 Kentucky 16 31 22 7 76 Louisiana 20 23 23 8 74 Maine 20 13 8 1 42 Maryland 3 32 11 12 58 Massachusetts 5 33 9 7 54 Michigan 34 32 22 13 101 Minnesota 89 49 18 8 164 Mississippi 12 22 19 4 57 Missouri 41 32 19 8 100 Montana 18 7 8 2 35 Nebraska 42 11 10 6 69 Nevada 14 15 9 11 49 New Hampshire 13 18 10 5 46 New Jersey 3 37 8 10 58 New Mexico 15 7 14 4 40 New York 36 50 20 13 119 North Carolina 25 39 14 8 86 North Dakota 29 11 8 2 50 Northern Marianas Islands 0 0 1 1 2 Ohio 37 30 19 9 95 Oklahoma 37 16 16 9 78 Oregon 30 25 14 8 77 Pennsylvania 37 48 24 12 121 Puerto Rico 1 2 6 1 10 Rhode Island 1 18 6 6 31 South Carolina 21 24 18 7 70 South Dakota 43 10 8 2 63 Tennessee 27 31 23 8 89 Texas 66 63 37 20 186 US Virgin Islands 1 0 2 1 4 Utah 18 13 12 8 51 Vermont 7 8 3 2 20 Virginia 16 38 19 10 83 Washington 25 32 14 8 79 West Virginia 8 12 12 8 40 Wisconsin 94 27 22 11 154 Wyoming 12 6 12 1 31 Total 1,415 1,277 801 409 3,902 1 Company numbers determined by counting operating company numbers (OCNs). Carriers typically obtain at least one OCN per state in which they do business. Thus, carriers operating in multiple states are counted multiple times.

2 Some carriers obviously misclassified the type of service that they provide. For instance, the CLEC operations of one RBOC classified itself as an ILEC, even in states in which it has only CLEC operations. These misclassifications do not have a significant effect on the utilization statistics in other tables, because they have so few numbering resources. Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast forms filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of September 7, 2001. Table 8 Pooled and Potentially Poolable1 Thousands-blocks as of June 30, 2001

Pooled Potentially Poolable In One of the Nation's Top 100 MSAs2 Statewide

State ILECs and CLECs ILECs and CLECs Cellular/PCS Total ILECs and CLECs Cellular/PCS Total Alabama 0 997 614 1,611 3,359 1,935 5,294 Alaska 0 0 0 0 1,288 221 1,509 Arizona 0 1,657 843 2,500 2,259 1,503 3,762 Arkansas 0 721 358 1,079 2,248 1,089 3,337 California 6,166 28,469 3,744 32,213 33,474 4,305 37,779 Colorado 764 890 366 1,256 2,132 1,585 3,717 Connecticut 2,132 2,526 444 2,970 2,754 480 3,234 Delaware 0 586 94 680 1,442 155 1,597 District of Columbia 0 837 94 931 838 94 932 Florida 1,070 5,868 1,680 7,548 9,679 3,571 13,250 Georgia 0 3,462 435 3,897 5,738 1,888 7,626 Hawaii 0 417 60 477 763 247 1,010 Idaho 0 0 0 0 1,123 838 1,961 Illinois 4,081 6,840 902 7,742 11,892 1,590 13,482 Indiana 0 2,381 477 2,858 6,527 1,362 7,889 Iowa 0 97 8 105 1,419 1,548 2,967 Kansas 0 1,777 214 1,991 5,252 589 5,841 Kentucky 0 1,033 190 1,223 4,497 1,257 5,754 Louisiana 0 925 386 1,311 2,357 1,277 3,634 Maine 969 7 8 15 501 337 838 Maryland 0 7,549 584 8,133 8,328 786 9,114 Massachusetts 252 11,462 939 12,401 12,316 1,010 13,326 Michigan 0 7,715 1,061 8,776 11,797 2,534 14,331 Minnesota 0 2,203 344 2,547 3,459 1,092 4,551 Mississippi 0 79 11 90 2,389 705 3,094 Missouri 0 3,951 481 4,432 7,195 1,464 8,659 Montana 0 0 0 0 558 924 1,482 Nebraska 175 242 120 362 1,890 487 2,377 Nevada 0 856 253 1,109 1,223 283 1,506 New Hampshire 1,361 263 183 446 903 449 1,352 New Jersey 0 10,889 985 11,874 12,057 1,169 13,226 New Mexico 0 124 115 239 483 510 993 New York 5,998 8,293 1,324 9,617 10,111 1,834 11,945 North Carolina 0 3,729 914 4,643 7,503 2,340 9,843 North Dakota 0 98 17 115 433 752 1,185 Ohio 0 8,343 1,341 9,684 12,118 2,513 14,631 Oklahoma 0 1,693 135 1,828 3,860 858 4,718 Oregon 416 1,010 164 1,174 2,597 883 3,480 Pennsylvania 3,208 13,485 1,385 14,870 17,633 2,541 20,174 Rhode Island 0 1,370 137 1,507 1,753 148 1,901 South Carolina 0 1,258 473 1,731 2,331 1,368 3,699 South Dakota 0 79 27 106 663 788 1,451 Tennessee 0 1,759 354 2,113 3,942 1,538 5,480 Texas 511 14,765 1,628 16,393 22,581 3,642 26,223 Utah 517 614 218 832 1,124 1,027 2,151 Vermont 0 0 0 0 2,675 91 2,766 Virginia 965 4,557 835 5,392 6,901 2,036 8,937 Washington 0 3,539 648 4,187 5,323 1,591 6,914 West Virginia 0 115 69 184 2,097 524 2,621 Wisconsin 0 1,592 268 1,860 4,556 1,979 6,535 Wyoming 0 0 0 0 260 437 697 Totals 28,585 171,122 25,930 197,052 270,601 64,174 334,775

1 Thousands-blocks can be donated to a pool if 90% of the numbers in the block are available. If a state has implemented pooling, carriers are allowed to keep a six-month inventory of numbers in each rate center, so not all thousands-blocks that are listed as poolable are actually subject to pooling. At least 90% of the numbers in these thousands-blocks are available, and therefore at least 90% of the numbers in these blocks are a subset of the numbers shown as available in Tables 1 through 3.

2 The values shown in the MSA-related columns may be slightly understated. The number of poolable thousands-blocks in the MSA-related columns is derived from the carrier-submitted NRUF data. The LERG and other information was used to match rate center names with MSAs, so where carriers submitted incorrectly spelled rate center names, those thousands-blocks could not be counted as being in the MSA. The statewide numbers were derived from the NPA of the thousands-block. Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast forms filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of September 7, 2001 and July 2001 LERG. Figure 1 ILECs: Average Utilization Rates by

100% Number of NXXs Held in a Rate Center 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of NXXs held in a single rate center Figure 2 CLECs: Average Utilization Rates by

100% Number of NXXs Held in a Rate Center 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of NXXs held in a single rate center Figure 3 Cellular/PCs Carriers: Average Utilization Rates by

100% Number of NXXs Held in a Rate Center 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of NXXs held in a single rate center Figure 4 Paging Carriers: Average Utilization Rates by

100% Number of NXXs Held in a Rate Center 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of NXXs held in a single rate center Table 9 Number Utilization for Specialized Non-geographic Area Codes as of June 30, 2001 Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available1 Total Unique Specialized (Thousands of telephone numbers) NXXs Area Codes 2,812 630 8 27 40 2,555 6,072 384 500 46.3% 10.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.7% 42.1% 100.0% 115 107 50 73 0 2,085 2,430 173 900 4.7% 4.4% 2.0% 3.0% 0.0% 85.8% 100.0%

Table 10 Alternate Sources of NPA-NXX Assignments

NPA-NXXs that Appear in NRUF NANPA LERG NXXs

All Three Databases NRUF, NANPA and LERG ü ü ü 109,811

Two of the Three Databases NRUF and NANPA ü ü 2,064 NANPA and LERG ü ü 9,199 NRUF and LERG ü ü 3,283

Only One Database NRUF ü 341 NANPA ü 2,993 LERG ü 3,622 Total NXXs in Database. 115,499 124,067 125,915

1 Includes only telephone numbers in NXXs assigned to carriers and are therefore available for assignment to customers. Does not include any numbers in NXXs that have not yet been assigned to carriers. Sources: June 30, 2001 NRUF database, as of September 7, 2001; NANPA's NPA-NXX assignments database as of September 18, 2001; and the LERG, as of July 1, 2001. Table 11 Number Utilization Over Time When Same Carriers Reporting Same NXXs

Carrier Type December 2000 June 2001 ILEC 59.1% 58.9% CLEC 11.1% 13.1% Cellular/PCS 47.8% 51.6% Paging 24.6% 23.5% Overall 45.0% 46.0%

Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast Reports data filed with NeuStar, Inc.

Table 12 NPA-NXXs Assigned, Returned and Net Assignments

NPA-NXXs NPA-NXXs Net Quarter Assigned Returned Assignments 1998 Q3 1,554 0 1,554 1998 Q4 2,375 0 2,375 1999 Q1 3,019 0 3,019 1999 Q2 4,693 95 4,598 1999 Q3 4,202 164 4,038 1999 Q4 3,993 545 3,448 2000 Q1 4,552 775 3,777 FCC Issued First Numbering Resource Optimization Order 2000 Q2 4,126 923 3,203 2000 Q3 3,497 818 2,679 2000 Q4 3,235 1,146 2,089 FCC Issued Second Numbering Resource Optimization Order 2001 Q1 3,095 1,725 1,370 2001 Q2 3,136 1,320 1,816 2001 Q3 2,112 1,611 501

Source: NeuStar, Inc. Customer Response

Publication: Numbering Resource Utilization in the United States as of June 30, 2001.

You can help us provide the best possible information to the public by completing this form and returning it to the Industry Analysis Division of the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau.

1. Please check the category that best describes you: ____ Press ____ Current telecommunications carrier ____ Potential telecommunications carrier ____ Business customer evaluating vendors/service options ____ Consultant, law firm, lobbyist ____ Other business customer ____ Academic/student ____ Residential customer ____ FCC employee ____ Other federal government employee ____ State or local government employee ____ Other (please specify)

2. Please rate the report: Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor No opinion Data accuracy (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Data presentation (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Timeliness of data (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Completeness of data (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Text clarity (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Completeness of text (_) (_) (_) (_) (_)

3. Overall, how do you Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor No opinion rate this report? (_) (_) (_) (_) (_)

4. How can this report be improved?

5. May we contact you to discuss possible improvements? Name: Telephone #:

To discuss this report, contact Craig Stoup at 202-418-0989 or . Fax this response to: or Mail this response to: 202-418-0520 FCC/CCB/IAD Washington, DC 20554